Source notes

Persistent training difficulties can affect how an athlete feels as well as how they perform. Researchers examined psychological and cognitive findings from 11 studies involving 461 participants, including 173 identified with non-functional overreaching or overtraining syndrome. Athletes with these conditions generally reported more disturbed mood, stress and fatigue. Evidence for thinking skills was much thinner: only two studies examined the ability to suppress an automatic response during a task. Their results differed. The paper supports attention to mental strain alongside sporting performance, while leaving many questions about cause and cognitive effects unresolved.

The two cognitive studies did not demonstrate a clear sequence from milder to more severe impairment. One found more task errors in athletes with overtraining syndrome; the other found little difference in athletes with non-functional overreaching. They used different versions of the task and different designs. Comparing those findings cannot establish that one condition inevitably progresses into the other or damages thinking ability.

How Does This Show Up in Real Life?

An elite athlete who becomes unusually tense, exhausted or discouraged during a difficult training period may have changes worth discussing alongside declining performance. The authors suggest monitoring mood, fatigue and perceived stress as part of a broader assessment, with communication between athletes, coaches and practitioners. Such monitoring can identify a need for further investigation, but a questionnaire score does not establish the cause. Sleep disruption, inadequate nutrition and existing mental health problems can also influence these experiences. The findings do not mean that feeling low after a demanding week proves overtraining. Nor does a normal result on a simple thinking task exclude a problem. The research mainly supports taking psychological experiences seriously when interpreting a persistent departure from an athlete's usual functioning.

All nine observational studies were judged at high risk of bias, and the two case reports or series had methodological concerns. Most evidence was cross-sectional, so the direction of relationships remains unclear. Definitions varied, and endurance sports and men predominated. The review could not combine results statistically or determine a reliable recovery timeline. Findings cannot simply be extended to children or recreational exercisers.

Why We Cite It

Alpekin can use this paper when discussing how confidence in an appealing explanation depends on the research behind it. The uneven coverage of psychological and cognitive outcomes offers an example of why evidence for one aspect of health should not automatically support a claim about a neighbouring aspect.

These findings justify careful attention, with restraint about prediction. They do not supply a mental checklist that diagnoses a training disorder. The value lies in recognizing what deserves fuller assessment while keeping the limits of the available studies visible.